Relegate Primary Elections To Dustbin Of History

OTHER VIEWS - MY WORD

Ihave nothing against Iowa and New Hampshire, but it's frightening that people from two states such as these have acquired a stranglehold on the presidency.

At a time when the United States is becoming more diverse in both population and culture, it is hard to see that either Iowa or New Hampshire has been affected by these changes.

To have two of the least representative of states making fundamental decisions about who will be the first to govern the country in the 21st century seems to me to be the highest form of folly. How did such a thing come to pass?

At the end of the 19th century, Americans were increasingly disgusted with the corruption of the democratic process. Senators, congressmen, state and local politicians, judges and delegates to political conventions were bought and sold like commodity futures on the Chicago Board of Trade.

If you didn't own a few politicians, you were obviously not a person of consequence. Those politicians not owned by corporations and captains of industry were controlled by the great and corrupt political machines of the cities.

To correct the problem, political reformers worked vigorously to increase democracy. One of the key reforms was the primary election. This, it was argued, would put the political system back into the hands of the people, and elected officials would find it necessary to be responsive to their constituents.

It seemed like an excellent idea, and reform swept the nation. Before long, primariy elections were everywhere. By the second half of the 20th century, the primary election had become the most significant part of the presidential-candidate selection process.

By late in the 20th century, something had gone terribly wrong. The primary election became the sole vehicle to get to the presidential nomination, and television became the major means to reach those small numbers of people who might vote in a primary. Advertising money became critical.

The early primaries came to carry disproportionate weight because any sign of early weakness could cut off the flow of funds to a candidate. Thus, the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary election are deemed major events, although they involve relatively few people.

A century after the reforms adopted to cure corruption, demand for advertising money in the primary elections has added another dimension of corruption. Bribery has been replaced by campaign contributions,'' and owning politicians has been replaced by access.'' The crude buying and selling of politicians have been replaced by a much smoother system hidden behind euphemisms suitable to the new millennium.

I never thought I would decry the political reforms of the Progressive Era in American history, but clearly the primary election has outlived its usefulness. Once designed to end corruption, the primary election has become corrupted itself. A handful of people in Iowa and New Hampshire, and truckloads of campaign contributions, have produced a need for a new era of political reform.

It may be time to roll back democracy, relegate the primary election to the dustbin of history, and give the nominating powers back to the boys in the smoke-filled rooms.